Yes, we've seen how "well-behaving" some Atheists can be. Over 140 million bodies piled up while certain self-declared Atheists were demonstrating their "well-behaving." Human beings...Atheists, as it happens...did it. So why would we start trusting "the goodness in [the human] heart" again?

Don't we already have enough dead bodies piled up to the failure of that blind optimism?

Over 140 million deaths by atheist hands is nothing compared to the approx. over one billion dead bodies by Christian hands. If you want to quote statistics, I can quote them too.

The truth is, which you said so eloquently, and you forgot the instant you said it, is that we are all human beings... and Christianity or any other religion won't mask it to any degree of significance.

There are bad atheists... and there was Cortez, the killer. A Christian, a crusader, a conqueror, whose hands killed more people in history in terms of total population available than anyone else's. He was a Christian, a devout Christian.

Then there were good atheists, and there was Mother Theresa.

You can test me, Immanuel, but please watch the news; the biggest single multiple murder in US history just this week was carried out by a devout Christian. A man who took the belief that the Holy Spirit dwelled in his heart. And then he went and killed I don't know how many people, 80? A good, devout Christian, unparalleled in SIN by atheists.

Need to hear more? All, or almost all, people on death row in the USA are Christians.

So please don't give me that crap that atheists have LESS compassion in their hearts than Christians. Look at the bloody records, for crying out loud, and please look at them without a biassed pre-judged view, trying to prove something you so desperately but without success are trying to prove. Look at the records, and THEN draw your conclusion, and not the other way around, please.

But if you believe that some things are actually evil -- like, say, killing over 140 million people -- then all that nastiness has to come from somewhere. If the Atheist's suppositions are correct, then there's only one place it CAN come from -- human nature. Human beings...Atheists, as it happens...did it. So why would we start trusting "the goodness in [the human] heart" again?

If God created us then he must have created our nature as well. You could say he also gave us the free will to turn away from the "nastiness" in our nature, thereby giving us a choice, and himself the means by which to judge us. The trouble is: he neglected to give the 140 million you mentioned the choice of whether or not they wanted to participate in his test.

If you are saying that a person does not intentionally or deliberately become a Christian, then I disprove your rule. I am not an accidental or inherited Christian.

But if you'd been born in the Middle East you would probably be "not an accidental or inherited" Muslim. I don't know why a person becomes a Christian, doc, there could be any number of reasons I imagine. To be honest I think it much more sensible to judge people by their behaviour than by their religion or lack of it. Religion won't make a bad person good and atheism won't make a good person bad. Everyone believes things that are irrational to someone else but does it matter?

Yes, we've seen how "well-behaving" some Atheists can be. Over 140 million bodies piled up while certain self-declared Atheists were demonstrating their "well-behaving." Human beings...Atheists, as it happens...did it. So why would we start trusting "the goodness in [the human] heart" again?

Don't we already have enough dead bodies piled up to the failure of that blind optimism?

Over 140 million deaths by atheist hands is nothing compared to the approx. over one billion dead bodies by Christian hands. If you want to quote statistics, I can quote them too.

Well, you've got to admit, if you've actually looked it up, that that's a completely phony statistic. You're not even close.

According to the statistics compiled by the authoritative and completely secular source, The Encyclopaedia of Wars, the worst deed committed by so-called "Christians" (though, of course, they weren't, but I won't challenge you on that point here) was the Spanish Inquisition But even it was far, far less homicidal than Atheism, which is, on an annual basis, precisely 182,716 times worse than that.

Well, I wouldn't, of course. There are Theists (Islam is an easy case for you) that have killed people out of their creed. But nothing, not even the bloodiest and longest crusades of Islam, ever came close to the record of Atheism.

The truth is, which you said so eloquently, and you forgot the instant you said it, is that we are all human beings... and Christianity or any other religion won't mask it to any degree of significance.

If a "religion" as you call it, could alter human nature, it would. But without altering that factor, there is no chance for any ideology to produce anything but what, historically, it has already been producing.

There are bad atheists... and there was Cortez, the killer. A Christian, a crusader, a conqueror, whose hands killed more people in history in terms of total population available than anyone else's. He was a Christian, a devout Christian.

No, he wasn't. He was a discoverer and military conqueror, with at least a nominal Catholic background. (I'll let the Catholics debate how "Catholic" he really was, because it's of no importance, really.)

Then there were good atheists, and there was Mother Theresa.

There are no "good" people, according to Atheism. There are only people who imagine they are "good." The value "good" is not a real thing, not objectively true, unrelated to any factual assessment of any situation, according to Atheism. It's either merely a personal feeling or a social construct; and in both cases, simply a delusion.

And that's the point. There is absolutely no reason why an Atheist has to choose to be "good" (whatever he takes that to be). He can be a Stalin, a Mao or a Pol Pot, and he's still as "good" an Atheist as anybody else; because "good" isn't real.

You can test me, Immanuel, but please watch the news; the biggest single multiple murder in US history just this week was carried out by a devout Christian. A man who took the belief that the Holy Spirit dwelled in his heart. And then he went and killed I don't know how many people, 80? A good, devout Christian, unparalleled in SIN by atheists.

Like most Atheists, you have no idea what a "Christian" is. But do you mean Timothy McVeigh? You actually think, that he was a "Christian," in some reasonable sense?

Well, let's let him speak. Here's his own explanation of his motives, as given in his own letter. Show me the "Christian" bit, if you can.

"...For all intents and purposes, federal agents had become soldiers (using military training, tactics, techniques, equipment, language, dress, organisation and mindset) and they were escalating their behaviour.

Therefore this bombing was meant as a pre-emptive (or pro-active) strike against these forces and their command and control centres within the federal building. When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operations, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy. Additionally, borrowing a page from US foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government. Bombing the Murrah federal building was morally and strategically equivalent to the US hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations.

Based on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as an acceptable option...."

Now, you can say he's not being forthcoming. You can argue that he was "secretly" a Christian, if you want. There's no reason to believe it, but I'll play along. If he was, then without doubt, he was an anomaly...an irregular case. Not only do Christians NOT do such stuff, they actively do the opposite...build up society, observe a basic moral lifestyle, follow laws, give more to charity than any other group on earth, and so on. And everybody knows it. Moreover, their fundamental belief forbid what T McV did, so in no sense, even if we try to call him a "Christian," can we say he was acting as one when he did what he did.

But Atheists? There is statistically a 52% chance that the Atheist leader of any state will kill at least 200,000 of his own subjects. That's how common it is. And there is not a thing in Atheism that says he cannot, should not, or is a bad Atheist if he does.

Need to hear more? All, or almost all, people on death row in the USA are Christians.

Do you mean to point out that men who are about to die think about God?

I wouldn't be surprised if they do...even the Atheists. Or are you trying to imply that whatever they did, they did when they were Christians, and for Christian reasons? If that's what you mean, you haven't said that.

Look at the bloody records, for crying out loud, and please look at them without a biassed pre-judged view, trying to prove something you so desperately but without success are trying to prove. Look at the records, and THEN draw your conclusion, and not the other way around, please.

I have, as you can see. I've offered the hard facts, direct quotation, and impartial sources above. I have not relied on any "pro-religious" sources at all.

Indeed. But "human nature," when created, did not include evil. It included, as you say, an option for "free will." It included the option to reject God (who is, of course, the Source of all goodness) and to embrace the opposite by choice (the "not-good," the evil).

You could say he also gave us the free will to turn away from the "nastiness" in our nature, thereby giving us a choice, and himself the means by which to judge us. The trouble is: he neglected to give the 140 million you mentioned the choice of whether or not they wanted to participate in his test.

Ah. Did you expect that evil would "play fair"? I think you know it doesn't. One of the things that makes it evil is that it has no regard for free will, for innocence, or for human dignity or rights. Evil is no private matter: it always takes victims.

Or did you suppose God ought to prevent it from happening at all? But then, what of free will? Then God would have us in the unenviable position of not being able to choose at all. And freedom is one of our very great human goods.

Well, you've got to admit, if you've actually looked it up, that that's a completely phony statistic. You're not even close.

We all know that statistics say whatever you want them to say, depending on where you get them from and the spin you put on them. The fact is, Christians can be killers, atheists can be killers and people of any religion can be killers. All this tells us is that human beings have a tendency to kill each other and being a Christian doesn't necessarily prevent it. Why are you so obsessed with trying to construct arguments to prove Christians are morally superior to anyone else? If Christ is what you hold him up to be I'm sure he will be far more concerned with how we treat one another than whether we call ourselves Christians.

That is merely an unprovable belief of yours. Made particularly unprovable by the fact that there is no such thing as objective goodness. What is good for me will inevitably be bad for someone or something else.

Ah. Did you expect that evil would "play fair"?

Evil is an adjective signifying harmful intent for no other reason than it's own sake. People who do "evil" are just wired up that way, something's gone wrong somewhere. To think of evil as some kind of force trying to find its way into us is something our distant ancestors might be forgiven for thinking but this day and age, really?

Or did you suppose God ought to prevent it from happening at all? But then, what of free will? Then God would have us in the unenviable position of not being able to choose at all.

This theism lark is very similar to a board game with its arbitrary rules and conditions, which, although logically inexplicable, are nevertheless necessary to make the thing work. While we may be able to accept that it's just the way things are that we collect £200 when we pass go and we can't have a hotel until we first acquire four houses for the sake of an hour or two's amusement, it does not mean it is appropriate to adopt this invent things to make them fit approach to living our lives.

Well, you've got to admit, if you've actually looked it up, that that's a completely phony statistic. You're not even close.

We all know that statistics say whatever you want them to say, depending on where you get them from and the spin you put on them.

Well, when the statistical variation is between a few thousand and 148 million, I think we've got enough space to say safely that we're looking at something indicative of an important difference.

The fact is, Christians can be killers, atheists can be killers and people of any religion can be killers.

But if a "Christian" were to murder someone, then obviously, he'd be a bad Christian. And if a Jew did it, he'd be a bad Jew. If a Muslim did it, he'd be a "good" Muslim, because Allah says to kill the infidels.

If an Atheist did it, he would be neither "good" nor "bad," just a person exercising one of his options.

Why are you so obsessed with trying to construct arguments to prove Christians are morally superior to anyone else?

I'm not. I'm very interested in the idea that a sizeable number of people in this particular space are under the influence of an ideology that actually gives no logical warrant for them to believe in any morality at all. That's interesting...and a little concerning, if they ever start to believe their Atheism in reality.

But I cannot recall having offered myself as morally superior. If I have, please show me and I'll happily take it back and beg your forgiveness. It would be absurdly hubristic -- and unchristian -- for me to do that. Now, I do recall that I've frequently offered Christianity as the basis of objective morality, and pointed out the amorality of Atheism; but I have not presented myself as an exemplar in any way, so far as I can recall. I, too, am a bad person in need of being changed by God. And apart from Him, I'd possibly be worse than any. Who knows? Who can say what is in his own heart, given the wrong circumstances?

But whether God is a better moral Touchstone than Atheism, well, of that there can be no reasonable doubt. Atheism, by its own confession, has nothing at all to offer in a morally-positive way, and yet denies the possibility of anyone else offering anything else either. It's the ultimate "dog-in-a-manger" when it comes to morality.

What is good for me will inevitably be bad for someone or something else.

No, that's not so. Goodness is not a "zero-sum" game, in which there is only a certain amount to go around, so that any gain for one is a loss for another.

Ah. Did you expect that evil would "play fair"?

Evil is an adjective signifying harmful intent for no other reason than it's own sake. People who do "evil" are just wired up that way, something's gone wrong somewhere.

How can anything be "wrong"? Whatever is, simply is, according to Atheism. People are wired as they are wired, and there an end of it. They are not "wrong" for being wired as they are. Neither are they "right" for being more like you may be.

To declare anything "wrong" is then completely arbitrary. So under Atheism, there are no "evil" people or "evil" deeds...merely deeds that do not fit the norm, or deeds that a particular society has decided not to like. And there is no "good" for society, nothing "better" toward which it can aim its moral precepts. It can only imagine these things, not make them objectively better.

But as per Atheism, slavery, rape, pornography, genocide, paedophilia...never "wrong" in any permanently binding sense. Just something some people don't happen to like, while others do; and as for society, who says but that they may well start to like these things again tomorrow?

If you think it can't happen, look at our current practices of infanticide. We would make a Roman emperor blush at what we do routinely.

Well, when the statistical variation is between a few thousand and 148 million, I think we've got enough space to say safely that we're looking at something indicative of an important difference.

You can quote figures to your hearts content but why do you suppose anyone will take any notice of them?

But if a "Christian" were to murder someone, then obviously, he'd be a bad Christian. And if a Jew did it, he'd be a bad Jew. If a Muslim did it, he'd be a "good" Muslim, because Allah says to kill the infidels.

If an Atheist did it, he would be neither "good" nor "bad," just a person exercising one of his options.

We are all just people exercising our options. Do you think a man who is about to be shot between the eyes cares whether the gun is in the hands of a Christian or an atheist? But I'm forgetting, it's not really important what he thinks, is it? It's what God thinks that matters, right?

I'm very interested in the idea that a sizeable number of people in this particular space are under the influence of an ideology that actually gives no logical warrant for them to believe in any morality at all.

What ideology do you speak of?

But I cannot recall having offered myself as morally superior. If I have, please show me and I'll happily take it back and beg your forgiveness. It would be absurdly hubristic -- and unchristian -- for me to do that.

This is excellent news. So we can agree that the Christian and the atheist have parity as far as morality is concerned.

Now, I do recall that I've frequently offered Christianity as the basis of objective morality,

Yes, I also recall that you are under the illusion that there is such a thing as objective morality. It's an easy mistake to make because, whatever our morality is, it has a tendency to seem self evident and therefore to seem objective, but as we know, that cannot be the case.

and pointed out the amorality of Atheism;

The amorality of atheism takes no pointing out, you may just as well say you've pointed out the amorality of being uninterested in music.

But whether God is a better moral Touchstone than Atheism,

Atheism is not a "touchstone" for anything beyond one's view on the subject of God's existence.

Atheism, by its own confession, has nothing at all to offer in a morally-positive way, and yet denies the possibility of anyone else offering anything else either. It's the ultimate "dog-in-a-manger" when it comes to morality.

Atheism does not have an opinion on morality. Atheism is more than happy to let us base our morality on whatever we like, in fact, there is nothing to stop us from basing it on God, as long as we bear in mind that God is purely hypothetical.

But as per Atheism, slavery, rape, pornography, genocide, paedophilia...never "wrong" in any permanently binding sense.

My subjective opinion is that all these things are wrong but that opinion has nothing to do with atheism. Furthermore, wherever my moral views come from, you are in no position to say they are not permanently binding.

Just something some people don't happen to like, while others do; and as for society, who says but that they may well start to like these things again tomorrow?

Well, when the statistical variation is between a few thousand and 148 million, I think we've got enough space to say safely that we're looking at something indicative of an important difference.

You can quote figures to your hearts content but why do you suppose anyone will take any notice of them?

No. Because Atheism isn't about facts or truth. It's about a strong, strong desire to believe that there is no God. Evidence and logic isn't its main driver, and so a lot of the Atheists drop facts the minute they don't line up with what they want to believe.

But if a "Christian" were to murder someone, then obviously, he'd be a bad Christian. And if a Jew did it, he'd be a bad Jew. If a Muslim did it, he'd be a "good" Muslim, because Allah says to kill the infidels.

If an Atheist did it, he would be neither "good" nor "bad," just a person exercising one of his options.

We are all just people exercising our options. Do you think a man who is about to be shot between the eyes cares whether the gun is in the hands of a Christian or an atheist?

Maybe not. But the chances are good it's an Atheist with the gun. Or more likely, the gun's to the back of the victim's head, and he's kneeling over a pit. That's how it's worked out in history.

I'm very interested in the idea that a sizeable number of people in this particular space are under the influence of an ideology that actually gives no logical warrant for them to believe in any morality at all.

What ideology do you speak of?

Atheism, of course. (Cue the cry, "Atheism's noooooot an ideoooooology!" ) But of course, it is. One has to "believe" in the idea that there is no God, or else one simply cannot be said to be an Atheist. So it may be a thin, shallow and monomaniac ideology, but it's certainly an ideology.

But I cannot recall having offered myself as morally superior. If I have, please show me and I'll happily take it back and beg your forgiveness. It would be absurdly hubristic -- and unchristian -- for me to do that.

This is excellent news. So we can agree that the Christian and the atheist have parity as far as morality is concerned.

As mere humans, left to our own devices? Absolutely. But that being said, what they believe, and Whom they believe are not on "parity." And it makes a big difference in practice. Christians are simply not left to their own devices in this regard; but Atheists, by their own confession, are. And that explains the vast difference in the moral histories of Christianity and Atheism...but of course, those are the very facts the Atheists refuse to look at, even when entirely secular experts produce them in abundance.

Now, I do recall that I've frequently offered Christianity as the basis of objective morality,

Yes, I also recall that you are under the illusion that there is such a thing as objective morality. It's an easy mistake to make because, whatever our morality is, it has a tendency to seem self evident and therefore to seem objective, but as we know, that cannot be the case.

"We" know? "Cannot"? Well, there are two claims you're going to have to justify...but unless you want merely to beg the question, you shouldn't appeal to Atheism to justify them. After all, the point in debate is whether or not God exists, so you can't have that supposition uncontested...

What's your basis, outside of Atheism, for such confidence?

But, of course, if your supposition relies on Atheism as a premise, then two things follow: 1. Atheism is essential to the amorality you are advocating there, and 2. Your conclusion is an ideological derivative, not a self-evident proposition, and "we" don't have reason to "know" any such thing.

and pointed out the amorality of Atheism;

The amorality of atheism takes no pointing out, you may just as well say you've pointed out the amorality of being uninterested in music.

Well, except music didn't kill 148 million people last century.

Atheism, by its own confession, has nothing at all to offer in a morally-positive way, and yet denies the possibility of anyone else offering anything else either. It's the ultimate "dog-in-a-manger" when it comes to morality.

Atheism does not have an opinion on morality.

It entails one. If Atheism is true, there is no such thing as morality. That follows necessarily, just as the darkness follows dusk.

Last edited by Immanuel Can on Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

But as per Atheism, slavery, rape, pornography, genocide, paedophilia...never "wrong" in any permanently binding sense.

My subjective opinion is that all these things are wrong

Now, that's interesting. What do you mean when you say they're "wrong"? Do you mean, "Only wrong for me, because I don't like them," or "Wrong for every right-thinking person, because they're actually wrong, regardless of how a person feels about them"?

but that opinion has nothing to do with atheism.

I'm certain it doesn't.

Furthermore, wherever my moral views come from, you are in no position to say they are not permanently binding.

I don't have to. The burden of proof goes the other way. If you say that your moral views are binding, then it is you who has to answer the skeptic as to why he / she is obligated.

No. Because Atheism isn't about facts or truth. It's about a strong, strong desire to believe that there is no God. Evidence and logic isn't its main driver, and so a lot of the Atheists drop facts the minute they don't line up with what they want to believe.

I don't have a desire not to believe in God, but I don't have a reason to believe in him either. Even if I did want to believe in him it wouldn't make any difference. It would be like coming home from work starving hungry only to find an empty fridge. I'd like to believe it wasn't empty but what good would that do?

Maybe not. But the chances are good it's an Atheist with the gun. Or more likely, the gun's to the back of the victim's head, and he's kneeling over a pit. That's how it's worked out in history.

What sort of argument is this? This is just a hypothetical scenario off the top of your head tailored to fit the bogus point you are trying to make.

I'm very interested in the idea that a sizeable number of people in this particular space are under the influence of an ideology that actually gives no logical warrant for them to believe in any morality at all.

What ideology do you speak of?

Atheism, of course. (Cue the cry, "Atheism's noooooot an ideoooooology!" ) But of course, it is.

No, it isn't.

One has to "believe" in the idea that there is no God, or else one simply cannot be said to be an Atheist. So it may be a thin, shallow and monomaniac ideology, but it's certainly an ideology.

No, it isn't like that. I never give God a thought unless I happen to be arguing with you about him, or rather about the absence of him.

Christians are simply not left to their own devices in this regard; but Atheists, by their own confession, are.

So the question is: is it better to look to yourself for guidance or to a fictitious character. Well, obviously, the answer to this is dependant on many factors.

"We" know? "Cannot"? Well, there are two claims you're going to have to justify...

Not really, I only made the "claims" to show you how it feels when you do it to me.

Well, except music didn't kill 148 million people last century.

Come on, IC, you're better than this. There are no facts or figures in existence to justify such a ridiculous conclusion. I don't even know why I'm acknowledging the remark.

If Atheism is true, there is no such thing as morality. That follows necessarily,

It only follows if you believe that (a) there is a God and (b) that God is the source of morality. I think (a) unlikely, therefore (b) even less likely. Yet I do believe there is such a thing as subjective morality. I believe it comes from our social environment and is then modified by the individual and, despite your assertion that there is no compulsion to comply with it, some people seem to find it difficult to go against it.

It would be like coming home from work starving hungry only to find an empty fridge. I'd like to believe it wasn't empty but what good would that do?

You're right; none, of course. However, the question is whether or not the "fridge" is "empty," or somebody is merely convinced it is.

Maybe not. But the chances are good it's an Atheist with the gun. Or more likely, the gun's to the back of the victim's head, and he's kneeling over a pit. That's how it's worked out in history.

What sort of argument is this? This is just a hypothetical scenario off the top of your head tailored to fit the bogus point you are trying to make.

Actually, it was a scenario played out over and over again by Atheistic Leftist regimes in the 20th Century. Mass graves are their stock-in-trade.

What ideology do you speak of?

Atheism, of course. (Cue the cry, "Atheism's noooooot an ideoooooology!" ) But of course, it is.

No, it isn't.

Aaaaand...there it is.

One has to "believe" in the idea that there is no God, or else one simply cannot be said to be an Atheist. So it may be a thin, shallow and monomaniac ideology, but it's certainly an ideology.

No, it isn't like that. I never give God a thought unless I happen to be arguing with you about him, or rather about the absence of him.

Then you aren't an Atheist, just as you've said several times before. And I believe you. But it's surprising, then, that you choose to believe that the "fridge" is "empty." I would think you'd say instead, "I have no idea about the fridge, and no interest in dinner."

Well, except music didn't kill 148 million people last century.

Come on, IC, you're better than this. There are no facts or figures in existence to justify such a ridiculous conclusion.

Actually, there are. And I've said several times, including on this strand, where anyone can find them.

But you don't even have to do the fact-check. I'll make it very easy. Just ask yourself this: how many people do you think died by violence in the 20th Century? How many of them were killed for religious reasons -- ANY religious reasons -- and how many by the Atheist regimes of people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the National Socialists, Kim Jong Il / Un, the FARC and other similar groups in South America...

Common sense will tell you that it isn't even close. So you don't even need the accurate 148 million number. Any fair guess will give you the same outcome, by overwhelming numbers. More people were killed in the 20th Century than in all wars, purges, pogroms and witch hunts than in all of recorded history combined; and none of those killed in that century were killed in alleged "wars of religion," because there were none then.

But Atheism doesn't like facts. And it doesn't like its own history.

If Atheism is true, there is no such thing as morality. That follows necessarily,

It only follows if you believe that (a) there is a God

No. It follows if a person believes there's not a God. Theists believe in objective morality.

Yet I do believe there is such a thing as subjective morality. I believe it comes from our social environment and is then modified by the individual and, despite your assertion that there is no compulsion to comply with it, some people seem to find it difficult to go against it.

I've also said this repeatedly, but Atheists prefer not to hear me. They want me to say, "All Atheists can only choose to be evil." But I've never said that. What I have said instead is that Atheists can choose to behave morally or immorally. But there's nothing in Atheism that makes it "better" for them to do the former than the latter. And some, clearly, prefer the latter.

What can the Atheist do about them? He can't even prove that what they've done is "wrong" or "immoral." All he can do is claim arbitrarily his own right to punish (or reward) them for things that aren't really "wrong," according to Atheism. But of course, to punish people for things that aren't "wrong" is not "wrong" in his view either.

This is indeed subjective. But by no stretch of the imagination is it moral.